Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al (US 6,506,482 B1).
With regards to claim 1, Burton discloses a multilayer laminate material comprising at least one layer of vitreous carbon composite material (i.e., a multilayer laminate vitreous carbon article comprising sheets of vitreous carbon formed of adjacent sheets bonded to each other), wherein each layer of vitreous carbon composite material in the form of a pyrolyzed poly(furfuryl alcohol) film having a thickness ranging from about 0.1 to about 2000 microns, which overlaps the claimed thickness range of not exceeding 6 mm (Burton: col. 2, lines 48-53 col. 8, lines 1-8; claim 32). The phrase “at least one layer” recited by Burton implies the existence of multilayer laminates having, for example, three or more films of pyrolyzed poly(furfuryl alcohol), which would lead to a structure including a pyrolyzed film vitreous carbon interlayer between adjacent sheets (i.e., in the case of Burton, a pyrolyzed poly(furfuryl alcohol) film located between two additional, adjacent pyrolyzed poly(furfuryl alcohol) films) (Burton: col. 2, lines 48-53; claim 32). As best understood, although the claim recites a sprayed or 3D printed film of resin, the claim later recites pyrolyzing the resin (i.e., implies that the resin film has been transformed to a vitreous carbon layer, and therefore, a layer of vitreous carbon is positively recited by the claim). The language “formed by crystallization, solid-state, or sublimation” and “bonded to an adjacent sheet by a sprayed or 3D printed film of resin applied at a thickness of 0.01-0.5 mm and cured and pyrolyzed by variable frequency microwave radiation whose frequency is modulated to effect curing and pyrolysis of the resin film) constitutes product-by-process language. Such language does not limit the claimed product to the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the claims require a vitreous carbon multilayer laminate comprising sheets of vitreous carbon each having a thickness not exceeding 6 mm, the sheets bonded together, and Burton suggests such a product.
With regards to claim 72, the resin film comprises catalyzed furfuryl alcohol (see above discussion). It is noted that the claimed resin is subsequently pyrolyzed (i.e., the claim is directed to a polymer material used to form a layer of vitreous carbon via pyrolysis, and the claim is not interpreted as physically including catalyzed furfuryl alcohol).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant summarizes the Burton and Whitmarsh references, and Applicant argues that the present invention “uses a completely new approach to create large section crack-free vitreous carbon.” Applicant notes that “the vitreous carbon laminate of the present invention can be rapidly manufactured” and that the approach to the present invention has “no significant limits to the thickness of the stacked laminate layers that is achievable in a rapid, efficient, and cost-effective manner.” Applicant has introduced new product claims which include the process steps referenced in the presented arguments. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as the argued subject matter is claimed in the form of product-by-process. Product-by-process language does not limit product claims to the material performance of the recited steps, but only the implied structure. That the claimed product is formed by “a completely new approach,” “can be rapidly manufactured,” and has “no significant limits to the thickness of the stacked laminate layers that is achievable in a rapid, efficient, and cost-effective manner” does not establish patentability, as such features, as best understood, do not imply the existence of a structural difference between the claimed laminate and the laminate of Burton.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783